Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Tue, 16 Apr 2002 11:32:47 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Tue, 16 Apr 2002 11:32:46 -0400 Received: from perninha.conectiva.com.br ([200.250.58.156]:6149 "HELO perninha.conectiva.com.br") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id ; Tue, 16 Apr 2002 11:32:46 -0400 Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2002 12:32:25 -0300 (BRT) From: Rik van Riel X-X-Sender: riel@duckman.distro.conectiva To: Mark Mielke Cc: Terje Eggestad , linux-kernel , Liam Girdwood , BALBIR SINGH , William Olaf Fraczyk , Lee Irwin III Subject: Re: Why HZ on i386 is 100 ? In-Reply-To: <20020416093824.A4025@mark.mielke.cc> Message-ID: X-spambait: aardvark@kernelnewbies.org X-spammeplease: aardvark@nl.linux.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, 16 Apr 2002, Mark Mielke wrote: > Increasing the HZ can only improve responsiveness, however, there is a > cost (mentioned by others). The cost is that the scheduler is executed > more often per second. If the scheduler does the same amount of work > per tick, but there are more ticks per second, the scheduler does more > work overall, and the CPU is free for use by the processes less. Why are you discussing Linux 1.2 ? Linux is not running the scheduler each cpu tick and hasn't done this for years. regards, Rik -- http://www.linuxsymposium.org/2002/ "You're one of those condescending OLS attendants" "Here's a nickle kid. Go buy yourself a real t-shirt" http://www.surriel.com/ http://distro.conectiva.com/ - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/